Who knows what she secretly thinks, but officially, she's saying you shouldn't have used me without asking. Of course, the group that made the ad — the Respect for Marriage Coalition — has the right to appropriate this clip and use it in their political message. Imagine how hard it would be to make political ads if you couldn't use clips like this. I suspect that secretly she's happy to influence opinion this way — especially as she's able to hold herself at some distance from politics. She clearly likes to seem modest and completely unpushy, as you can see in the longer clip from the Larry King show:

What a terrible shame that the Republican Party didn't accommodate itself to this idea at least 10 years ago. Really, it's a shame they didn't buy in even earlier, 18 years ago, when Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal" came out. At the time, the left-liberals I knew were antagonistic to the institution of marriage and viewed Sullivan's contribution as an unwelcome conservative intrusion on the gay rights movement, which they saw as belonging within a left-wing ideology that transcended traditional institutions. Back in the 90s, I sat through serious, lawyerly presentations aimed at stopping the marriage equality proponents from changing the focus of the movement. There was a wonderful opportunity then for conservatives to embrace the issue, and they missed it.

The Republican Party saw the advantage elsewhere, and now they're stuck with the result.

Yeah, kinda reminds me of how the Republicans embraced amnesty 25 years ago! It brought millions of Hispanic voters to the party! Now Republicans are dealing with their result of their Simpson-Mazzoli hate!

What is the reason for gays to get state benefits? I don't understand the purpose.

Frankly, I think we ought to be unwinding the whole idea that women ought to work. Or to be PC, for one parent to stay at home (why does one have to account for the unusual case without being labelled intolerant?)

Marriage is for kids. The other aspects don't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I'm fine for those parts of it, i.e., the non state funded benefits, for gays. Or, shall I use the word Takei? I thought that was a funny video.

Or do people think that two able bodied adults think they ought to get the same state benefits as married couples when they aren't having kids?

On one level, I don't care that much about the GOP; I hold it mostly in contempt, although it's not so sown with salt that it can't sprout an occasional good political figure.

That said, our genial hostess's advice--for the GOP to have embraced the redefinition of marriage--seems poor.

The GOP has benefited tremendously from the Democratic Party's decision to be the party of abortion with three exclamation points. It has drawn many people, who would otherwise find a home among the Dems, especially a lot of Catholics.

If the GOP led the way on making war on marriage (that's how a lot of us would have seen it), that would have given a very powerful reason to say, "OK, the Dems are evil, but now, the GOP is too."

That might have sent Catholics back to the Democrats; or else it might have sent some home; or else a third party (which remains hard to do).

Good for the Dems, good for legal abortion, good for redefining marriage, I suppose--but how is that good for the GOP?

Or for the country? Is it really a good thing for our country to decide it no longer wants to be friends with Christianity?

All that would have happened is that the conservative position would continue to be the bad guy position no matter what it was. Nothing would have been gained. The concept of gay marriage would be pure evil instead of pure good, and all the right thinking people would nod their heads in agreement with each other and scowlingly scold the wrong thinking ones.

I don't have a problem with Republicans clinging to their...anti-gay marriage stance. It will just make it easier to defeat them in 2014. Raise your voices loud and clear and tell everyone why you think this is an abomination!

You invoke morality, but the whole point is that homosexuality is a negative, and therefore it would be immoral to countenance it for political profit. Do you get it, prof, or should I mansplain it for you?

Also, the notion that embracing redefining marriage is something "conservatives" would do entails a radical redefinition of what a conservative is.

I realize lots of conservatives define it their own way, of course--and that's fine; but words have meaning, and the history of "conservatism" is not that obscure.

Conservatism is rooted in the idea that society has a certain normative structure; that there are traditions and institutions that are key components of the good society; and one of the things a conservative does is protect these structures, values and institutions as normative.

In the U.S., conservatism became married--somewhat uneasily--to certain economic and contempoary political theories, arising from our unique origins as a nation. Our conservatives aren't monarchists, they tend to be strict constructionists on the constitution. And just as our nation, at the founding, tended to split between federalists and anti-federalists, both streams of thought persevere among conservatives, north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The deeper truth is that conservatism is fundamentally rooted in Christendom; as such, it presupposes a Christian anthropology of man, including the idea of Original Sin and human fraily. This is why conservatives tend to be skeptical of projects to change the world.

I would have assumed our genial hostess is familiar with all this; but her comment seems unmindful of it.

The notion of conservatives embracing a radical (at the root) redefinition of a fundamental institution of human existence entails an almost unrecognizable notion of what it means to be a conservative.

What does "friendly" mean to you, phx? You mean, if they don't change the very basis of an institution that for thousands of years has been the foundation of human civilization, that means they're not friendly?

What does "friendly" mean to you, phx? You mean, if they don't change the very basis of an institution that for thousands of years has been the foundation of human civilization, that means they're not friendly?

That works for starters. Hey I see your dilemma and I respect your personal feelings. I'm just saying it's going to redound against the GOP and I'm not so sympathetic about THAT.

Bob Ellison said...The porpoise is to force people to accept something new. Force the culture. Use laws or the courts to do it.

That won't work.

It's the purpose, too. And I hate to break it to you, but it is working. Long-term it will fail, but right now it's working. People regularly compare homosexuals to pre-civil rights era blacks. Especially young people. If you're against gay marriage you're a bigot, no discussion necessary.

"Yeah, kinda reminds me of how the Republicans embraced amnesty 25 years ago! It brought millions of Hispanic voters to the party!"

It brought millions of Hispanic voters to the Democratic party and the Republicans are going to cave again and the Dems will get even more Dem voters.

I can remember wondering why KY Congressman Ron Mazzoli concerned himself with immigration and amnesty when here in Ky we didn't have any illegal mexican immigrants, well thanks to Simpson-Mazzoli we have them now.

"Here's a nit for you: The definition of words is a different issue than the scope of our rights. "

But I think some conservatives were willing to make some kind of equal rights accommodation allowing all the same civil benefits of marriage. They just refused to call it marriage because it debases the historical coin-value of marriage (procreative)

What can I say, other than the Republican Party is not so friendly towards gays. I think it's the young single women demographic that hurts you the most. My guess is they're okay with gay marriage.

Well, my response isn't so much to defend the GOP as conservatives--they aren't the same--from the label, "anti-gay."

Well, we'll see...

It isn't conservatives who advocate killing gay people in the womb. That's a liberal cause.

No, I know they don't advocate singling out gay people; but how far away do you think we are from someone saying, "here's what we think is a 'gay gene'"--and here's a test for identifying it during pregnancy"?

And we already have so-called "sex selection" abortions. Liberals do nothing meaningful to stop them (i.e., specifically outlawing sex-selection abortions is meaningless)--what makes you think they'll do more to stop gay-selection abortions? Liberals are for the right to kill unborn gays (and straights).

Second, whose more likely to take guns out of the hands of gay people? If you are a minority that is still, sometimes, hated and harassed, I would think you would be very much in favor of gun rights. Liberals are for gays relying on others to protect their safety; or else run and hide (as gov't videos recommend).

There is a history here: white supremacists were great on keeping their own guns, but in advocating strict gun control on the blacks they oppressed. Any minority that can be marginalized by the majority should take note--and buy a gun.

And while the GOP is just as much lustful for big government as the Dems, the conservative position of smaller, less powerful government would seem to be as good for gays as anyone.

Yes, big government has been a powerful appeal for those who have little, and would like to have more. Redistributing wealth from others to them has obvious appeal.

But gays, we're told, tend to be better off, economically, than average. If that's true, then I'm wondering how taking more of their money, and making decisions for them, is in their best interest.

A question for which I have a hunch of an answer, but no real data: will Obamacare be a good deal for gay people? I suspect not, but I don't really know. If I'm right, there's another consideration.

All that seems a lot to trade away just to get the gov't to tell you your relationship has society's stamp of approval.

If this redefining marriage ends up working out badly as many predict: if it does end up spawning infringements on people's free exercise of religion, and if it does end up producing problems because of the kids raised in same-sex households being messed up...

How will that be good for gay people?

It's not clear to me how a group representing 3-4% of the population benefits from irritating a significant portion of the population who--even if not the majority, is bigger than they are.

I want to personally thank the boomer generation for going on personal journeys of discovery, freeing themselves from tradition and convention, and finding new political and moral compasses by which to set our course.

This is an issue where I wish both side would be more pragmatic. The gay rights people aren't happy with having Civil Unions that have identical tax benefits to marriage. The socially conservative folks bitterly resent the aggressive redefining of a term, which in turn makes them seem hateful and makes it easier for the left to cast them as homophobic neanderthals. And round and round we go but nothing ever gets solved and people just get more and more pissed off.

Althouse: "Rights are a deeper matter than the question of what words mean."

I see.

So it's more important that the tax treatment of married couples is extended to gay couples, than what the word "married" actually means, or the word "gay", or the word "couples".

Fine. Let's have a big fucking referendum:

Proposed: Same-sex couples are free to marry, with the same legal benefits as other couples.

Except, because the meaning of words is a matter of secondary importance, I'll pick a little nit and insist (just because I say so, on the same authority as those who are in the process of redefining the word "marriage") that the actual meanings of the words and phrases in that proposition should be swapped out thus:

Same-sex couples = All tequila

are free...as = now belongs

other couples = to Pastafarian.

Stupid argument? Perhaps. It's my specialty. But this is how creeping leftism has been advancing -- through the language. Gun control is now "gun safety". Abortion is choice. And on and on. And now "marriage" must include pairings that are by definition non-procreative; and tax advantages given only to encourage procreation, and to help with costs associated with it, can be extended to those who cannot possibly procreate.

At the time, the left-liberals I knew were antagonistic to the institution of marriage and viewed Sullivan's contribution as an unwelcome conservative intrusion on the gay rights movement, which they saw as belonging within a left-wing ideology that transcended traditional institutions.

Oh come on. I have been a left-liberal all my life and the views that you claim "the left-liberals you know" are nothing like the views of anyone I know.

Was the opportunity to bet on reverse psychology to restore rational thought and discipline? That doesn't seem to be effective for issues related to physical, material, or ego gratification, or any other cause which requires self-moderating behavior. Men, women, and others dream of instant gratification without consequence, and with the progress of civilization (i.e. dissociation of risk), the moral degradation of society seems to be inevitable. Men, women, and others just want to have fun. At least until conclusive corruption and final displacement.

The Democrat party currently has the luxury of having a coalition of competing factions, but none large enough to have a disparate impact on the outcome of the party's social platforms.

Blacks, by great measures, aren't keen on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, the Democrats can afford to placate the gay party elements without fear of reprisal since the other issues that propel blacks to the polls overwhelm the single-issue identity that some Democrat voters share.

The same cannot be said of the Republicans, who need both fiscal conservative/libertarians and evangelicals to make hay on election day.

I would love for the Republicans to move closer to the Libertarian model, but the sad truth is that the Libertarian model loses elections and alienates social conservatives to the point of absentia.

The Democrats maintain momentum with their everything-for-everyone model because the financial distress the country will be subjected to (and the Republicans have been a secondary party to) has yet to come to full fruition.

Until the country reaches a saturation point where it can no longer function using the same model it has since the 1930s, not much will change at the Federal level.

In fairness, the GOP's libertarian wing has been perfectly fine with same-sex marriage for a long time. And the largest anti-SSM consitutencies have consistently voted Democrat. The media didn't think that was worth mentioning, of course. The imaginary Republican boogeyman hatin' on teh gayz is much too useful as a Democratic party fundraiser.

Freder Frederson said...Oh come on. I have been a left-liberal all my life and the views that you claim "the left-liberals you know" are nothing like the views of anyone I know.

You must know some pretty strange people.

I guess I know the same strange people because that was my experience in the 90s too. Nobody was more anti-gay marriage than the homosexuals I knew. The idea of marriage and all its tacky accoutrements was beneath contempt in their world.

Homosexuality is perversion. So much for Althouse's "morality." But the brave new world knows no absolutes. That's what makes it so thrilling to cutting edge addicts. It's a barbarous age and so, as in former barbarous ages, civilization will retreat into redoubts and attempt to outlast the inevitable time of troubles. But of course it is no sure thing that civilization will return...ever. The main thing is to shwing, baby.

Is it really a good thing for our country to decide it no longer wants to be friends with Christianity?

Freder said:

Not all Christians hold the same values as you or your church. I resent the implication that Christianity means opposition to same sex marriage or even abortion rights.

Well, I hope you feel better.

Christianity is not defined by you, your feelings, or a self-selected collection of people who decide to add this or strike that from the Creed.

Christianity began with? What? A Bible? No. It began with the Church. Which Church?

That's right. The Churches with Apostolic origins. Catholic, Orthodox and other ancient Churches, mostly unknown to Americans. They argue about a number of things, but the interesting thing is, they all agree on those things modern, secular sorts think should be marginlized.

Guess where they all are on homosexual behavior (as a subset of what chastity is) and abortion? Guess where they have been--this is easily documented--since the first century?

Against.

This isn't a side issue to Christianity, it's essential to who and what Christianity is.

As several people have pointed out, blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage but overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Seems to me if there's a missed opportunity for conservatives it's in having failed to woo those voters.

Freder Frederson said...Maybe its a Wisconsin thing. The cheese curds must be affecting your brains.

I grew up in Chicago. Most of the homosexuals I knew were from there or other big cities like San Francisco, L.A., Toronto and New York. Were you around a lot of gay people in the 90s? Maybe we just ran with different crowds.

"The notion of conservatives embracing a radical (at the root) redefinition of a fundamental institution of human existence entails an almost unrecognizable notion of what it means to be a conservative."

But "marriage" has never been that simple. It's simply not historically accurate to maintain that "one man and one woman" is the only meaning of the term. Certainly not in history as familiar to Christendom.

The deeper truth is that conservatism is fundamentally rooted in Christendom...

Freder said:

Maybe in Roman and Orthodox Christendom. But that is why we had the reformation.

Also, the tradition of this country, is much more reformed and protestant, not Roman Catholic. Were any of the founders Roman Catholic?

Quite right; that's why I said that in this country, the marriage between conservatism and our revolution is "uneasy."

So, speaking broadly, Protestantism has not always made a good marriage with conservatism; it has, indeed, given rise to anti-conservative movements.

So, yes, the Reformation was indeed a rebellion against Catholicism and Christendom--although I don't think the leaders of Protestantism intended the latter; but they got it nonetheless.

Now, I don't want to be unfriendly to anyone, simply for being Protestant, but I have to say it. It remains to be seen, in terms of long-term trends, whether the Protestant Reformation has worked out, all that well, as a Christian movement.

I spent my 20s as a Protestant. Many of those very anti-Catholic. Along the way, I gradually reconsidered my anti-Catholic views, and eventually, it dawned on me that if the Catholic Church suddenly ceased to exist, Protestantism would be in deep trouble.

Thought exercise: Catholics can easily imagine a world in which there is no Protestantism. But, seriously, can Protestants imagine a world in which there is no Catholic Church? Really?

The wound that arose in the Protestant Reformation was avoidable in many ways. The English Reformation, certainly; but also Luther's rebellion. Both Luther and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church deserve blame.

Did you know that the Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation (I think it's called), ultimately agreed that the one issue which Luther said was the whole rationale for his movement--the doctrine of Justification by Faith--was mostly a misunderstanding; and what remained that they disagreed over, did not justify dividing the Church? (Look up the Joint Decree on the Doctrine of Justification.)

Oh, boo. What a shame that the Republican Party didn't exploit this cheap wedge issue for political gain years ago? Not. I applaud the restraint and recognition that the government should not be in the business of ratifying personal unions. If there was any. Restraint and recognition. It probably just didn't occur to them to exploit gays for political gain. When the left did so, Bush proposed civil unions which would have provided the rights but not the moral victory so cradle death for that. Also, practically, cry-baby wedge issues only work for progressives since the media only works for progressives. If Republicans pushed this, it would be a joke. "Mean old Christianist conservatives forcing freedom-loving gays to marry" instead of "mean old Christianist conservative preventing equality loving gays from marrying.

The notion of conservatives embracing a radical (at the root) redefinition of a fundamental institution of human existence entails an almost unrecognizable notion of what it means to be a conservative.

Bryan C said:

But "marriage" has never been that simple. It's simply not historically accurate to maintain that "one man and one woman" is the only meaning of the term. Certainly not in history as familiar to Christendom.

I don't think I said marriage has always been about "one man and one woman." I know better.

But I am utterly unaware of marriage ever being disconnected from the issue of family and procreation. That is the essential quality of marriage that precludes so-called "same sex marriage"; it's also why incestuous marriages are frowned upon.

But, if you are pointing out a history to polygamous marriages--or else, marriages that are not life-long--you are correct. Which is why I think once redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not long be followed by those advocating for incestuous unions and polyamorous ones. Once marriage is detached from procreation, why not?

Inasmuch as I encountered gay hostility to marriage back in the day, it struck me as being sour grapes. Some people, when told they cannot have something, act like it is the last thing on Earth they'd ever want.

Ace was onto something last summer when he described how liberalism is basically a cargo cult. And it's true here on the gay "marriage" falderol. They want gays to enjoy by fiat what they perceive straights to be enjoying, never understanding that they never can.

Whatever helps force gay couples to pay higher taxes - I'm all for it.You know - for the common good.

As the church of TV's "Modern Family" (or – Don’t just accept teh gay, you must worship teh gay, bigots) informs us- - It's ok to dress your young child up as Greta Garbo for a photo shoot, but don't let me catch you doing such a thing if you are a hetero. You will be mocked by the church of Jon Stewart.

SteveR said......"Losing elections today, losing young voters for a long time. The 'stupid party'."

There's one nice thing about all of the GenX/Millennials voting for Obama and Democrats, to support gay rights; a fringe benefit, as it were. Those same Democrats aren't doing a thing about Social Security, or Medicare, and I will be just in time to help gobble up all the benefits before the nation is bankrupted by them.

Sorry, but what you propose for social conservatives is total surrender, not pragmatism. As far as I can tell, the civil union concept addresses every material grievance of SS couples. All that's left is the word marriage itself. Accepting a practical solution in everything but name is pragmatic. Giving up the word itself is just surrender without peace. Without peace because the left will find another way to paint social conservatives as neanderthals.

Marriage exists because heterosexual sex tends to produce children. And since human children have an extended period of dependency, it is essential to establish paternity (or at least responsibility) to the child's parents.

That the state does not require heterosexual couples to prove fertility is a canard, as there's no reason for the state to be so intrusive. It's not necessary that 100% of married heterosexual couples to produce children in order to see the essential link between heterosexual sex and reproduction.

Because the roots of marriage inescapably lie in human reproduction, marriage is inescapably a heterosexual institution.

Which is why the relevent question isn't whether gays "may" get married, it is whether gays "can" get married. Other than benefits bestowed by the state or by employers, what is the relevence of this heterosexual institution to gay life?

All the more reason they ought to jump on the polygamy bandwagon right away! I mean, you wouldn't want anyone to be denying a fundamental right to anyone else, would you? That would be sexist or racist or bigoted or hateful or something.

Sorry if I say something already written but I didn't take the time to scan 89 entries before writing:

Ann misconstrues the Republican Party as usual. The party stands for very little really, as you can tell whenever issues arise. However, Republicans who join the party are largely very traditional, churchgoing, live-and-let-live types that generally tend to be CONSERVATIVE.

That means that fads, change for its own sake, passing fancies, causes of the week etc. are often (1) ignored, (2) disdained, (3) rejected and (4) distrusted. When said fad turns into a MOVEMENT, we tend to further dig our heels in and stand in a classic STOP! pose. Therefore, you will almost never see Republicans -- nor the Republican Party -- leap onto a bandwagon with enthusiasm unless it fits squarely within our traditional worldview.

The discussion on school choice elsewhere on this blog is a good example. Because the TRADITIONAL education is missing from public schools, conservatives and the Party tend to back vouchers and charter schools and experiments to break the Union Hegemony within Public Ed. Gay marriage? Not so much.

Now there are Republicans (usually nearer the Libertarian end of the spectrum) who have made the conservative case for gay marriage. Google the last 5 words of the preceding sentence and you'll find them. However I remain unconvinced and agnostic at the same time. Being a Californian, I sense the inevitability of gay marriage. But being a conservative who voted for civil marriage as an option in California and then got that and the next vote stuffed back in my face as "not good enough" by Liberal activists and a decidedly BENT judge who tossed out the peoples vote, well, I'm not helping the Gay Cause anymore.

Acquiescing to liberals and activists only encourages them to demand more. And more is never enough.

In the year of our Lord 1517, Augustinian Monk Martin Luther initiated a protest movement against...

Well of course the Lutheran church started as an effort to reform the Roman Catholic Church, but Knox and Calvin saw the Catholic Church as irredeemable. Their split with the Church in Rome was complete. I assumed you were implying that the modern Protestant Church could not exist without the modern Catholic Church. This of course is a silly proposition.

Althouse wanted the world to be turned upside down to support her self-interest, feminism, when she was young. Years later, she sees the mess that created.

Now she wants the world turned upside down to support her son's self-interest, gay marriage.

Same shit all over again. Blind unwillingness to recognize that she's doing the same fucking thing all over again. Pig headed refusal to acknowledge that the unintended consequences might be far beyond her comprehension.

Addicted to the "discrimination" hustle. After all, it served her self-interest.

Do you think marriage is a uniquely Christian value? I don't. It's popped up all over the world as a cornerstone of society.

While I agree religions have been the vessels that have carried forward some social institutions, some good ones, I don't see marriage as a uniquely Christian value, and I don't think Christianity "owns" marriage.

The state owns it. Marriage is very important to the state, as it is the institution that creates the next generation.

@edutcher What do you propose? Do you have a position beyond stonewalling (no pun intended)? Serious inquiry.

In regard to what, specifically?

If you mean same sex marriage, the public is overwhelmingly against it, so there isn't much that needs to be done, with the possible exception of election more Conservatives to public office and the bench - where applicable.

With a better-educated populace, I would also remind them of what they learned about the Romans and the Attic Greeks.

Kchiker said...

In the fullness of time this social psychosis will fall by the wayside as the homosexual propaganda/sympathy wave crests, breaks and retreats into a vague memory.

Do you really believe this? Wow...I'm afraid the future will come as quite a shock to you.

And much bigger to you. This has been tried and failed before, you know.

That is the next item on the agenda. If you don't think so you are fooling yourself. Same sex marriage is just one step in a process. Pay attention.

I don't think we should make policy based on fear. Let's decide things on their merits instead of a slippery slope that is probably not even there. If that does show up on the agenda, we can argue it on its own merits as well.

You are foolish if you think that the forces behind same sex marriage are not in the business of destroying traditional religious institutions and conservative religious practices. They will force everyone to conform to their political correctness. With the single exception of those who would resist violently....which as we all know are the Muslims. You can't even draw a cartoon or make a movie about them without getting stabbed.

But every other mainstream domination will be attacked relentlessly with special attention being given to the Catholic Church and the Mormons.

We have that now. We have many varieties of Christian marriage. Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Bhudist, and on and on. We have common law and state sponsored marriage as well. And yet all are granted equal rights and resonsibilities under the law. Civil unions are just one more in the mix.

Comparing this to and appropriating the mantle of America's racial struggle where they were separate and assuredly NOT equal is cheap, false and disgusting.

Everybody is saying the same thing now. The GOP should just adopt the Dems' platform so they can win.

I think that's really missing the mark. Barack Obama's election success was not overwhelming, and he never would have won in a battle of ideas or facts. If the GOP abandons it's base's values, it will never win again. The right won't vote for it, the left sure won't, and the middle will fall to whatever game is being played best this year - whatever lies are easiest to swallow.

The GOP will win again, but what good will that do if both parties stand for the same thing. People are over-thinking Obama's election. It was just emotional crap and stupidity. It will get old. It will pass.

Phx said...I don't think we should make policy based on fear. Let's decide things on their merits instead of a slippery slope that is probably not even there. If that does show up on the agenda, we can argue it on its own merits as well.

Why make ourselves hostages of fear?

So you are saying that the religious practices of mainstream congregations are subject to a debate on the merits? At some future date after this is settled. That is exactly what I am saying.

Supposedly there is freedom of religion in these United States. I already stated that same sex marriage should be the civil standard. You are admitting that it is one step. The next steps will follow. Freder is wrong as usual. They will move to do such things as remove the tax exemptions and otherwise attack religious dominations that not perform same sex marriages in their houses of worship. It is not fear to state that fact. It is logic.

After all who ever thought that the government would force Catholic hospitals and universities to provide birth control and abortion services in violation of their religious doctrine?

The problem is the the GOP aka RINOs have basically caved on almost all of their principals and are not much different than the Dems anyway. This is the reason that many of us either stayed home or didn't vote for Romney who is Rebulican-lite.... Bless his heart

Here's the thing, Republicans could 180 on this issue but the characterization is set in stone, the media won't bother to clear it up and the most popular and qualified womean is history is going to be the Democratic nominee. Millions of young people, libertarian in most respects, may not vote for HRC but they won't vote for a Republican. So 4-8 years of liberal judges, etc. But you can't make the case for that reasoning when you the face of the party is Todd Akin.

So you are saying that the religious practices of mainstream congregations are subject to a debate on the merits?

No, I'm not saying that. I think churches should be allowed to continue to marry who they want - I don't know anybody who thinks different.

My intended point was about slippery slopes in general - we should handle each situation as it develops instead of making decisions based on our fears of what could happen further down the road if we opened that door. And I would agree there are exceptions to that too. Just not in this case, IMO.

Discrimination mania has to be stopped at some point. The issue isn't even, in my mind, gay marriage any more.

I haven't got a clue why we're even having this discussion. Gays are too small a percentage of the populace, and too few gays want to be married, for this issue to even be on the table.

It's time for discrimination mania to stop. Althouse just has a bad habit that's something between addiction and nostalgia. She can't give up the discrimination mania. It's as silly and inconsequential as her Dylan mania.

This issue should not even be on the agenda. It's silly.

Althouse is pushing this issue because of her son. Appropriating the discrimination racket worked for her when she was young. It's time for this bad habit to be driven out of the political arena.

Freder Frederson 4:08 asks whether any of the founders of this country were Roman Catholic. Yes. Charles Carroll of Carrollton was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Of course many members of the small Roman Catholic minority in this American colonies also supported independence. Some probably died in battle.

Father Martin Fox started a whole big discussion about how essential the Roman Catholic Church is, and gave as an example that Luther needed the RC to rebel against. The fact is, Father Martin, your denomination is better off because of the reforms that it adopted in response to the Protestant Reformation, and has continued to adopt over the centuries, just as we Protestants are better off because of the challenges we have to meet from your denomination and from the various orthodox denominations.

Now to the point of the original post: Laura and George Bush disagreeing about gay marriage, while loving and respecting each other, ought to be an example for all of us. I support gay marriage; I voted for it when it was on the ballot here in NC. But I understand that people who feel otherwise are not evil. I just think they're wrong, and I hope over time they'll change. Demonizing those who disagree with you may work for President Obama (it has so far) but it's not the way to behave.

All the GOP needs to do is separate itself from what's going to be seen as the disaster we are currently ignoring and heading into.

The Dems are now desperately trying separate themselves from their own policy successes. It's going bad, and they see it. The game now is trying to stick it on the Republicans. It's hot potato for the next 10 years.

The GOP will win again, but what good will that do if both parties stand for the same thing. People are over-thinking Obama's election. It was just emotional crap and stupidity. It will get old. It will pass.

I've argued this too.

Remember, with Reagan, liberalism was near death.

Run Joe Biden vs. a new Republican and see if the black turnout equals that of 2008 or 2012.

Obama's election and Presidency is largely a symbolic one to many many voters. What he says or does while in office is immaterial to them. It's unfortunate, because I would rather the man be tested and challenged by the merits of his actions than be treated as a cypher.

I grumble as much as anyone over the republican's lost conservative principles. Still, it just warms my heart knowing the purists stayed home and gave us Obama. I wonder if any person will ever be good enough for the pure? Perhaps Jesus Christ himself will agree to run?Funny, he'd lose. Jesus doesn't have the rotted pop cult backing.

I agree with EMD's overall political assessment.I would love for the Republicans to move closer to the Libertarian model, but the sad truth is that the Libertarian model loses elections and alienates social conservatives to the point of absentia.

The Democrats maintain momentum with their everything-for-everyone model because the financial distress the country will be subjected to (and the Republicans have been a secondary party to) has yet to come to full fruition.

Until the country reaches a saturation point where it can no longer function using the same model it has since the 1930s, not much will change at the Federal level.

Still, it just warms my heart knowing the purists stayed home and gave us Obama.

I live in California and as a conservative, my vote in the national election is worth a bucket of warm spit.

I voted for Zaphod Beebelbrox. About as much use as voting for anyone.

Our voting and elections are rife with fraud and corruption. There is NO POINT in participating.

I'm trying to see if I can get UN registered from voting. Not just not vote anymore, but UN-registered to keep someone else from using my name and stealing my votes. If I can't....and I don't think I can...I'll find another literary character for next time.

I don't care what gay people do unless they begin to interfere with the religious principals and civil rights of others. It IS a slippery slope and coercion of religion and private parties is already happening.

This thread is a fair example of why the people like Andy R and phx cannot grasp why SSM does not get much traction outside urban or college areas. The confusion is there in other commenters and includes the blog owner also.

The resistance to SSM is not along republican or democrat lines. It is not and never has been a political issue. It is a social engineering issue and the opposing sides are conservative/progressive, not republican/democrat or liberal/moderate. Social engineering issues are often if not most often considered as stand alone moral imperatives rather than party issues. Reaction and opinion crosses party lines. Avowed and traditionally democrat black populations are very much against SSM as an example. The majority of Catholics, whether independent or those traditionally politically aligned with the democrats, also oppose it for another example.

Understand and treat the resistance to SSM for what it is - resistance to an attempt at imposing social engineering on an unwilling majority. It may be politically convenient to try to draw the lines as republican/democrat, but the evidence belies that. It is not anti-gay bigotry or small mindedness but a principled decision.

It is also incorrect or at least presumptive to point to any youthful demographic - young women or young men - as holding hard to any position on matters of social engineering over time. It takes time and experience and living on your own in the social construct we have to decide what fundamental changes to it you can live with. While there are certainly partisan or traditional/familial biased exceptions, most do not have that perspective when you are a college student or a twenty something.

I am not against same sex civil unions with all the legal and financial advantages (and downsides) of marriage but am vehemently against giving those unions the same social recognition that hetero marriages own.

Of course you didn't. And it is not settled. Obama lied as usual. It is a requirement under Obamacare that Catholic institiutions provide birth control and the morning after pill for their employees. It is subject to litigation even as we speak.

So now is your chance to take a position.

Do you think it is fine if the government forces a religion to violate it's doctrine to conform to a politically correct demand of a special interest?

Althouse said:"Rights are a deeper matter than the question of what words mean.

Morality is a deeper matter"

Interesting switch from your post on asteroids in which you indicated that Rush getting a word wrong was equivalent to a reporter screwing up basic physics.

Exactly which moral principle are people who advocate the traditionaldefinition of marriage breaking? Traditional marriage is one of the bedrock principles of Western Civilization. Society has a concern for successful marriages since this is the source of future generations. Granted, all heterosexual marrages don't produce children, but most do. As long as the participants are consenting adults, sodomy shouldn't be of any interest to society at large except as a breeding ground for STDs.

Since sodomy and heterosexual sex are intrinsically different activities, equality under the law doesn't apply, any more than traffic laws apply to airplane pilots.

DBQ - CA is righty and truly screwed. CA is the best example of one party rule corruption. When the UN is disgusted by the way we run elections, something is wrong.I have my own thoughts and feelings about Obama's narrow win. I think the dems know the system is ripe for corruption and they can easily target a county here and a county there in prime states. Never mind the eternal gripe about the sad state of our hack media.

Indeed. I've been at the University of Wisconsin Law School since 1984, and I've listened to many talks from people who were brought in, especially to discuss topics like this.

I have been sharply chided by lefties for expressing the belief that it's possible that sexual orientation has an innate aspect. I have been made to feel like a bad person for entertaining the very idea that you are now a bad person not to believe.

I don't care what gay people do unless they begin to interfere with the religious principals and civil rights of others. It IS a slippery slope and coercion of religion and private parties is already happening.

You see it in Andy R's every comment. He will never accept that resistance to SSM can be a principled and ethical defense of a social institution that his opponents see as a core component of society. He has to devalue and defocus it by casting it as bigotry against gays as a group. His projection of his bigotry against religion and it's disapproval of homosexuality against the supporters of traditional marriage won't stop if his side gets a judicial fiat victory. He's desperate in his need to be APPROVED of.

This issue is not the last hustle on the agenda of the racket. It's a self-perpetuating racket that has nothing to do with human rights. It's all about money and power. Accusing people of "bigotry" has become the ultimate weapon of the racketeer.

As soon as this issue is won, the racketeers will hatch a new one. The time to say no is now. I have the feeling that economic reality will intercede in any event.

The coming revolution of online learning will ultimately tear apart this racket and put the racketeers out of business.

Your emperor has no clothes, Althouse, and sooner or later everybody will see that.

Yeah, but they'll be too tired and worn out when they're old to vote to repeal all the stupid shit they voted in when they were young.

Ah, but the next generation of youth sees their options much limited by the foolishness of their elders when they were young.

It is imperative that the issue of SSM remains with the states and by decided by state legislation and not judicial fiat. Our country has a mechanism for peacefully amending errors committed by earlier generations - constitutional convention.

Screwing around with engineering the social contract between citizen and government and imposing change is more often resisted by civil strife. I expect that in Europe in the near future.

I have been made to feel like a bad person for entertaining the very idea

Respectfully, nonjudgmentally, this is what I think of as common victim talk - I hear it from people I know and care about, and I don't doubt for a second that whoever made them feel like a bad person probably were bad persons themselves. I'm not being a partisan, I think it's worth noting and calling attention to.

I think we need to transcend the pain our enemies cause us and stop being enthralled by the idea that they made us feel a certain way or made us do something.

This racket owes its existence to a tsunami of money directed into the coffers of education at every level to push the Diversity racket.

The Diversity racket was designed to give women with worthless degrees in sociology and the like a job where they could "do good."

Somewhere along the line, the funding has to be pulled out of this racket and women need to learn a line of work that is actually useful.

Until the racket is dismantled and the mooches are turned out of the educational establishment, they will just continue to invent one civil rights bullshit issue after another to justify their existence.

Still, it just warms my heart knowing the purists stayed home and gave us Obama

If Romney had won, he would have run again in 2016. That would mean waiting until at least 2020 for a Presidential candidate interested in addressing the country's problems.

But by all means, if you think Romney + Democratic Senate would be achieving real improvements when compared to Obama + Republican House isn't, feel free to explain (a) what and (b) how. Hard to see anything getting done when neither party will agree to real cuts in anything except the OTHER party's pet priorities.

Look at all the whining over the sequester, and the sequester doesn't make any real cuts at all.

That it is ok to force them to do things that are against their fundmental beliefs because they are too big to fail?

No I'm saying I'm not going to feel sorry for the church for the position that it's in in the USA. I don't see it as a victim. It has claws itself and it uses them. It's not like the government's taking the women out of the pews and forcing them to have abortions. Now Stalin, there was an enemy. And who knows but the church may raise itself to stronger heights than ever in the east because of it.

Ann, Yeah, it would have been fantastic if the GOP had figured out how to be on the right side of history two decades ago. Same could be said of you, couldn't it? Oh, sorry, you remain unaware of that point.

The truth is that being on the right side of history and morality would have required conservatives to stop being what they are: hateful zealots. But hateful zealotry is central to the Republican cause, the cause to which you have devoted yourself.

After all, Ann, you're the person who went on bloggingheads and in something like 25 consecutive appearances promoted Rush Limbaugh, one of the most foul racists and hatemongers in US politics.

Sorry the whole hatemonger thing isn't working out for you conservatives, but it's so central to who you are that it isn't likely to change until you all die of old age. Sadly, you are feeding your poison to new generations, so we are likely to be stuck with you for many generations to come.

I grumble as much as anyone over the republican's lost conservative principles. Still, it just warms my heart knowing the purists stayed home and gave us Obama.

Did they? Coming on the heels of the revelation that at least one of the OH poll workers being investigated for voting multiple times votes not 2, but 6, times, we now hear of a plan in NC to illegally register 11,000 voters. And this comes on the heels of 30,000 dead Tarheels on the rolls.

Did they really stay home?

Kchiker said...

If you mean same sex marriage, the public is overwhelmingly against it

This is incorrect. And the trend line is quite remarkable.

These are the same polls that told us Barry suddenly picked up 7 points because of Sandy.

Also the same polls that tell us the public has done a 180 on every significant issue since the "election".

Kchiker said...

The correct change for the Republican Party is to forcefully represent the interests of lower and middle class whites.

"Yeah, it would have been fantastic if the GOP had figured out how to be on the right side of history two decades ago. Same could be said of you, couldn't it? Oh, sorry, you remain unaware of that point."

I was always on the right side of ssm history!

Hooray for me! I've been for it since I first heard about. I was around lefties who rejected it, and later, righties who rejected it.

Why is the government in the marriage-defining and marriage licensing business anyway? It's weird how so-called small government conservatives squeal for the State to protect their "sacred institution" of marriage. If marriage is so ancient and immutable, take the State out of the equation; define marriage how you (or your religion) choose, and perform the sacrament as you will. The government can be there to enforce some neutral civil contract between the married parties. Otherwise, the State can butt out.

"The truth is that being on the right side of history and morality would have required conservatives to stop being what they are: hateful zealots. But hateful zealotry is central to the Republican cause, the cause to which you have devoted yourself."

Jack, aren't you projecting? In my experience, when people on the left start name calling, they are usually projecting their own faults on other people. I'll bet that if you were honest with yourself, you would find that you have many of the undesirable traits you see in other people.